{"id":8748,"date":"1988-09-30T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1988-09-29T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/member-secretary-andhra-vs-andhra-pradesh-rayons-ltd-ors-on-30-september-1988"},"modified":"2018-10-10T05:04:54","modified_gmt":"2018-10-09T23:34:54","slug":"member-secretary-andhra-vs-andhra-pradesh-rayons-ltd-ors-on-30-september-1988","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/member-secretary-andhra-vs-andhra-pradesh-rayons-ltd-ors-on-30-september-1988","title":{"rendered":"Member-Secretary, Andhra … vs Andhra Pradesh Rayons Ltd. & Ors on 30 September, 1988"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
Member-Secretary, Andhra … vs Andhra Pradesh Rayons Ltd. & Ors on 30 September, 1988<\/div>\n
Equivalent citations: 1989 AIR 611, \t\t 1988 SCR Supl. (3) 380<\/div>\n
Author: S Mukharji<\/div>\n
Bench: Mukharji, Sabyasachi (J)<\/div>\n
           PETITIONER:\nMEMBER-SECRETARY, ANDHRA PRADESH STATEBOARD FOR PREVENTION A\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nANDHRA PRADESH RAYONS LTD. & ORS.\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT30\/09\/1988\n\nBENCH:\nMUKHARJI, SABYASACHI (J)\nBENCH:\nMUKHARJI, SABYASACHI (J)\nKANIA, M.H.\nRANGNATHAN, S.\n\nCITATION:\n 1989 AIR  611\t\t  1988 SCR  Supl. (3) 380\n 1989 SCC  (1)\t44\t  JT 1988 (4)\t154\n 1988 SCALE  (2)1811\n CITATOR INFO :\n R\t    1992 SC 224\t (11,19)\n\n\nACT:\n    Water  (Prevention and Control of Pollution)  cess\tAct,\n1977: Section 3 and Schedule I--Cess--Levy and collection of\nIndustry  manufacturing Rayon Grade pulp--Neither  chemical,\ntextile nor paper industry.\n%\n    Statutory Interpretation: Taxing Statute--Interpretation\nof--No\troom  for any intendment--No  equity  about  tax--No\npresumption  as\t to tax--Whether any industry  falls  within\nrealm  of taxation--To be judged by predominant purpose\t and\nprocess--Not by any ancillary or Incidental process  carried\non by the industry.\n\n\n\nHEADNOTE:\n    The\t   respondent,\t Andhra\t  Pradesh    Rayons    Ltd.,\nmanufacturing  Rayon  Grade Pulp, a base  material  for\t the\nmanufacture of synthetics or man-made fabrics, was  assessed\nby the petitioner under the provisions of Water\t (Prevention\nand Control of Pollution) Cess Act, 1977 which provided\t for\nlevy  and  collection  of  Water  cess\tfrom  the  specified\nindustries  enumerated in Schedule I of the Act. On  appeal,\nthe  Appellate\t late  Committee  confirmed  the  order\t  of\nassessment   on\t  the  ground  that   the   respondent\t was\nmanufacturing Rayon Grade Pulp which came under the category\nof Textile industry.\n    The\t  respondent  filed  a\twrit  in  the\tHigh   Court\nchallenging  the levy Inter alia on the ground that  it\t was\nnot  one  of the industries mentioned in the  Schedule.\t The\nHigh Court upheld this contention.\n    Before this Court, it was sought to be canvessed by\t the\npetitioner that Rayon Grade Pulp was covered either by\tItem\nNo. 7 of the Schedule, which was chemical industry, or\titem\nNo.  10 which was textile industry, or item No.11 which\t was\npaper industry.\nDismissing the petition, it was,\n\t\t\t\t\t\t   PG NO 380\n\t\t\t\t\t\t   PG NO 381\n    HELD:  (I)\tThe  Act  being fiscal\tin  nature  must  be\nstrictly construed. The question as to what is covered\tmust\nbe  found  out from the language according  to\tits  natural\nmeaning, fairly and squarely read. [385F; 386B]\n    (2)\t In a taxing Act one has to look merely at  what  is\nclearly said. There is no room for any intendment. There  is\nno  equity about a tax, there is no presumption as  to\ttax.\nNothing is to be read in, nothing is to be implied. [385H]\n    (3) Whether a particular industry is an industry covered\nin  Schedule  I\t has  to be judged  normally  by  what\tthat\nindustry  produces  mainly,  its  predominant  purpose\t and\nprocess,  and  not by any ancillary  or\t incidental  process\ncarried on by it. [386D]\n    (4)\t Chemical  process would be involved  to  a  certain\nextent,\t more  or less in all industries,  but\tan  industry\nwould  be  known as a chemical industry if  it\tcarries\t out\npredominantly\tchemical  activities  and  is  involved\t  in\nchemical endeavours. [386E]\n    (5)\t Taxing consideration may stem\tfrom  administrative\nexperience  and\t other\tfactors of  life  and  not  artistic\nvisualisation  or  neat\t logic and so  the  literal,  though\npedestrian, interpretation must prevail. [386C]\n    (6) One of the well recognised canons of construction is\nthat  the  legislature\tspeaks its mind by  use\t of  correct\nexpression and unless there is any ambiguity in the language\nof   the   provision  the   Court  should   accept   literal\nconstruction if it does not lead to an absurdity. [387E]\n    (7)\t There\tis  no absurdity  in  the  literal  meaning.\nBroadly\t and literally it can be said that the\tRayon  Grade\nPulp  is neither chemical industry nor textile industry\t nor\npaper industry. [387G;386H]\n    In\tRe Micklethwait., [1885] II EX 452. 456;  Tenant  v.\nSmith,\t[1892] AC 150; St. Aubyan v. AG., [1951] 2 All\tE.R.\n473;  Cape Brandy Syndicate v. IRC., [1921] 1 KB 64  at\t 71;\nGursahai  Saigal v. C.I.T. Punjab, [1963] 3 SCR 893;  C.I.T.\nMadras v. MR. P. Firm, Muar, [1965] 1 SCR 815; Controller of\nEstate Duty, Gujarat v. Kantilal Trikamlal,<\/a> [1977] 1 SCR  9;\nIRC v. Duke of Westminster, [1936] AC 1 at 24; AV  Fernandez\nv. The State of Kerala, [1957] SCR 837; Martand Dairy & Farm\nv. Union of India,<\/a> [1975] Supp. SCR 265; Lt Col. Prithi\t Pal\nSingh Bedi v. Union of India,<\/a> [1983] 1 SCR 393, referred to.\n\t\t\t\t\t\t   PG NO 382\n    M\/s.  Gwalior Rayon Silk Mfg. (Wvg.) Co. Ltd. Mavoor  v.\nThe  Appellate Committee for Water Cess, Trivandrum,  A.I.R.\n1983 Kerala 110. overruled.\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
    CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Special Leave Petition (C)
\nNo. 8566 of 1988.\n<\/p>\n
    From  the  Judgment\t and Order dated  9.10.1987  of\t the
\nAndhra Pradesh High Court in W.P. No. 306 of 1983.
\n    R. Mohan for the Petitioner.\n<\/p>\n
    The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
\n    SABYASACHI\tMUKHARJI, J. This petition is for  leave  to
\nappeal\tunder  Article\t136 of\tthe  Constitution  from\t the
\njudgment and order of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh dated
\n9th  October, 1987. The question that was urged\t before\t the
\nHigh Court and the question which is sought to be raised  in
\nthis petition is whether the respondent Pradesh Rayons\tLtd.
\nwhich is manufacturing Rayon Grade Pulp, a base material for
\nmanufacturing  of  synthetics  or  manmade  fabrics  is\t  an
\nindustry as mentioned in Schedule I of the Water (Prevention
\nand  Control of Pollution) cess Act, 1977 for  the  purposes
\nof  levy of Water Cess under the Act. The water\t (Prevention
\nand  Control  Of  Pollution) Act, 1974\twas  passed  by\t the
\nParliament  to\t“provide for the prevention and\t control  of
\nwater\tpollution  and\tthe  maintaining  or  restoring\t  of
\nwholesomeness  of water, for the establishment, with a\tview
\nto  carrying out the purposes aforesaid, of Boards  for\t the
\nprevention and control of water pollution, for conferring on
\nand  assigning to such Boards powers and functions  relating
\nthereto\t and  for  matters  connected  therewith”.  For\t the
\naforesaid  purposes, the Act contemplated creation of  State
\nBoards at State level and the Central Board at the  national
\nlevel.\tThereafter,  the Water (Prevention  and\t Control  of
\nPollution)  Cess Act, 1977 being Act 36 of 1977\t was  passed
\n(hereinafter called ‘the Act’). The preamble to the said Act
\nstates\tthat the said Act was “to provide for the  levy\t and
\ncollection  of a cess on water consumed by persons  carrying
\non certain industries and by local authorities, with a\tview
\nto augment the resources of the Central Board and the  State
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t   PG NO 383
\nBoards\tfor  the prevention and control of  water  pollution
\nconstituted  under  the\t Water (Prevention  and\t Control  of
\nPollution)  Act, 1974”. Therefore, the said Act\t was  passed
\nonly for the purpose of providing for levy and collection of
\ncess  on  water\t consumed by  persons  carrying\t on  certain
\nindustries  with  a  view to augment the  resources  of\t the
\nCentral Board and the State Boards. Section 2(c)  stipulates
\nA  `specified  industry’  means any  industry  specified  in
\nSchedule T. Section 3 provides as follows:\n<\/p>\n
    “3.\t Levy  and collection of cess.–(1) There  shall  be
\nlevied\tand collected a cess for the purposes of  the  Water
\n(Preven-tion  and  Control  of\tPollution)  Act,  1974\t and
\nutilisation thereunder.\n<\/p>\n
    (2) The cess under sub-section ( I) shall be payable by-\n<\/p>\n
    (a) every person carrying on any specified industry; and\n<\/p>\n
    (b) every local authority,
\n    and\t shall\tbe  calculated on the  basis  of  the  water
\nconsumed by such person or local authority, as the case\t may
\nbe,  for  any  of the purposes specified in  column  (1)  of
\nSchedule II, at such rate, not exceeding the rate  specified
\nin  the\t corresponding entry in column (2) thereof,  as\t the
\nCentral\t Government  may, by notification  in  the  Official
\nGazette, from time to time, specify.”\n<\/p>\n
    Therefore, this section provides for levy and collection
\nof  cess  from the specified industries. Specified  industry
\nis one which is mentioned in Schedule I which is as follows:\n<\/p>\n
    “1. Ferrous metallurgical industry.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
    2. Non-ferrous metallurgical industry.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
    3. Mining industry.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
    4. Ore processing industry.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
    5. Petroleum industry.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
    6. Petro-chemical industry.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
    7. Chemical industry.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
    8. Ceramic industry.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t\t\t\t\t\t   PG NO 384\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
    9. Cement industry.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
    10. Textile industry\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
    11. Paper industry.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
    12. Fertilizer industry.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
    13. Coal (including coke) industry.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
    14. Power (thermal and diesel) generating industry.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
    15. Processing of animal or vegetable products industry.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
    Therefore, the short question, is, whether the  industry
\nrun  by the respondent herein for manufacturing Rayon  Grade
\nPulp, a base material for manufacture of synthetics or\tman-
\nmade fabrics is one of the industries mentioned in  Schedule
\nI hereinbefore.\n<\/p>\n
    In\tthis case, the respondent company was registered  as
\ncompany\t in  1975.  The\t supply of  energy  to\tthe  company
\ncommenced  on August 22, 1981 and the production began\tfrom
\nSeptember 1, 1981. The company manufactures rayon grade pulp
\nof  26250  tonnes per annum. The Company was served  with  a
\nnotice on 12th August, 1981 to furnish the quantum of  water
\nconsumed for assessment under the Act. Based on the  returns
\nfiled  by the respondent as required under section S of\t the
\nAct,  assessment  of water cess was made by an\torder  dated
\n31st  December\t1981.  Aggrieved  by  the  said\t order\t the
\nrespondent  filed an appeal before the\tAppellate  Committee
\nconstituted  under the Act. The Appellate committee  by\t its
\norder dated 30th November, 1982 conformed the orders of\t the
\nassessment  passed by the petitioner. Before  the  Appellate
\nCommittee  various  contentions were urged and only  one  of
\nsuch  contention  survives now and is  agitated\t before\t us,
\nnamely, that the Rayon Industry is nOt included in  Schedule
\nI of the said Act. The Appellate Committee by its order said
\nas follows:\n<\/p>\n
    “We\t are unable to agree with the arguments advanced  by
\nthe learned counsel. The appellant industry is manufacturing
\nRayon  Grade Pulp which comes under the category of  textile
\nindustry as it involves the production of Rayon Grade  Pulp.
\na  base\t material for manufacture of synthetic\tof  man-made
\nfibres.”
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t   PG NO 385
\n    From  the  aforesaid,  it  appears\tthat  the  Appellate
\nCommittee  was\tof the view that the respondent\t herein\t was
\nmanufacturing  Rayon  Grade  Pulp  which  comes\t under\t the
\ncategory  of  Textile mentioned in Schedule I  of  the\tAct.
\nTextile\t industry is item No. 10 in the aforesaid  Schedule.
\nAggrieved  by the decision of the Appellate  Committee,\t the
\nrespondent  herein  filed  writ\t petition  challenging\t the
\nconstitutional\tvalidity of the Act as well as the  levy  of
\ncess  on  water\t on the ground that it was not\tone  of\t the
\nindustries mentioned in the Schedule. The High Court by\t its
\norder  dated  9th  October,  1987  rejected  the  contention
\nrelating  to  the  constitutional validity  but\t upheld\t the
\ncontention  that  the  respondent’s  industry  was  not\t  an
\nindustry  which is mentioned in Schedule I and as  such\t was
\nnot  liable  to\t pay  cess.  It\t is  the  propriety  or\t the
\ncorrectness of that decision which is sought to be canvassed
\nbefore\tus  by this petition. It must,\ttherefore,  be\tmade
\nclear  that  we are not concerned with\tthe  correctness  or
\notherwise  of  the  decision of the  High  Court  about\t the
\nconstitutional validity of the Act in question. That is\t not
\nat  issue  before us since the\tpetitioner,  Andhra  Pradesh
\nState  Board for Prevention and Control of  Water  Pollution
\nhas  not  challenged  that finding.  The  only\tquestion  is
\nwhether\t the respondent is an industry as mentioned  in\t the
\naforesaid schedule. The High Court in the impugned  judgment
\nhas held that Rayon Grade Pulp is not covered by any of\t the
\nitems specified in the said Schedule. We are of the  opinion
\nthat the High Court was right. Before us it was sought to be
\ncanvassed  that Rayon Grade Pulp is covered either  by\tItem
\nNo. 7 which is chemical industry or 13y item No. 10 which is
\ntextile industry or item No. I1 which is paper industry.  We
\nare unable to accept the contention.\n<\/p>\n
    It\thas to be borne in mind that this Act with which  we
\nare concerned is an Act imposing liability for cess. The Act
\nis  fiscal in nature. The Act must, therefore,\tbe  strictly
\nconstrued  in  order  to find out  whether  a  liability  is
\nfastened on a particular industry. The subject is not to  be
\ntaxed  without clear words for that purpose; and  also\tthat
\nevery  Act  of\tParliament must be  read  according  to\t its
\nnatural\t construction of words. See the observations  in  Re
\nMicklethwait,\t[1885]\t11  EX\t452,  456.  Also   see\t the
\nobservations  in  Tenant v. Smith, [1892] AC  150  and\tLord
\nHalsbury’s   observations   at\tpage  154.  See\t  also\t the
\nobservations  of Lord Simonds in St. Aubyn v. AG,  [1951]  2
\nAll E.R. 473 at 485. Justice Rowlatt of England said a\tlong
\ntime  ago,  that in a taxing ACt one has to look  merely  at
\nwhat  is clearly said. There is no room for any\t intendment.
\nThere  is no equity about a tax. There is no presumption  at
\nto tax. Nothing is to be read in, nothing is to be  implied.
\nOne  has  to  look  fairly at the  language  used.  See\t the
\nobservations  in Cape Brandy Syndicate v. IRC, [1921]J 1  KB
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t   PG NO 386
\n64  at 71. This Court has also reiterated the same  view  in
\nGursahai Saigal v. C.I.T. Punjab, [1963] 3 SCR 893; S.L.  T.
\nMadras\tv.  V.\tMR. P. Firm, Muar,<\/a> [1965]  I  SCR  815.\t and
\nController  of\tEstate Duty Gujarat v.\tKantilal  Trikamlal,<\/a>
\n[1977] 1 SCR 9.\n<\/p>\n
    The\t question  as to what is covered must be  found\t out
\nfrom  the language according to its natural  meaning  fairly
\nand  squarely read. See the observations in IRC v.  Duke  of
\nWestminster,  [1936]  AC I at 24, and of this Court in\tA  V
\nFernandez  v. The State of Kerala,<\/a> [1957] SCR  837.  Justice
\nKrishna Iyer of this Court in Martand Dairy & Farm v.  Union
\nof  India,<\/a>  [1975] Suppl. SCR 265 has observed\tthat  taxing
\nconsideration  may stem from administrative  experience\t and
\nother factors of life and not artistic visualisation or neat
\nlogic and so the literal, though pedestrian,  interpretation
\nmust prevail.\n<\/p>\n
    In this case where the question is whether a  particular
\nindustry is an industry as covered in Schedule I of the Act,
\nit has to be judged normally by what that industry  produces
\nmainly.\t Every industry carries out multifarious  activities
\nto  reach  its goal through  various  multifarious  methods.
\nWhether\t a  particular industry falls within  the  realm  of
\ntaxation,  must\t be judged by the  predominant\tpurpose\t and
\nprocess\t and  not  by any ancillary  or\t incidental  process
\ncarried on by a particular industry in running its business.
\n    Chemical process would be involved to a certain  extent,
\nmore  or  less in all industries, but an industry  would  be
\nknown as a chemical industry if it carries out predominantly
\nchemical activities and is involved in chemical endeavours.
\n    We fail to see that Rayon Grade Pulp could be considered
\neven  remotely connected as such with chemical\tindustry  or
\ntextile\t industry  or paper industry. In  all  preparations,
\nthere is certain chemical process but that does not make all
\nindustries  chemical industries. The  expression  “chemical”
\nmeans,\t according  to\tCollins\t English   Dictionary.\t any
\nsubstance  used\t in or resulting from a\t reaction  involving
\nchanges\t to  atoms or molecules or used\t in  chemistry.\t The
\nConcise\t Oxford\t Dictionary, 8th Edition  page\t170  defines
\n“chemical”  as made by or relating to,\t chemistry.  Broadly
\nand literally, in our opinion, it can be said that the Rayon
\nGrade Pulp is neither chemical industry nor textile industry
\nnor  paper  industry. We find it difficult on  a  broad\t and
\nliteral construction to bring the industry of the respondent
\ninto  any of these categories. In other words, to  find\t out
\nthe  intention of the legislation, if possible it should  be
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t   PG NO 387
\nfound  out  from  the language used in case  of\t doubt.\t The
\npurpose\t of legislation should be sought for to clarify\t the
\nambiguity  only,  if  any. The\tfairest\t and  most  rational
\nmethod,\t says  Blackstone,  to interpret  the  will  of\t the
\nlegislator  is by exploring his intentions at the time\twhen
\nthe  law was made, by signs the most natural  and  probable.
\nAnd  these  signs  are either the words,  the  context,\t the
\nsubject\t matter, the effects and consequence, or the  spirit
\nand  reason  of\t the law. See Commentaries on  the  Laws  of
\nEngland\t by  Blackstone (facsimile of 1st edition  of  1765,
\nUniversity of Chicago Press, 1979 Vol. 1 p. 59.). The  words
\nare  generally\tto be understood `in their  usual  and\tmost
\nknown  signification’, although terms of art `must be  taken
\naccording  to the acceptation of the learning in  each\tart,
\ntrade  and science. If words happen still to be dubious,  we
\nmay establish their meaning from the context, which includes
\nthe  preamble  to  the statute and laws\t made  by  the\tsame
\nlegislator  on\tthe  same subject. Words are  always  to  be
\nunderstood  as\thaving regard to the subject matter  of\t the
\nlegislation. See Cross Statutory Interpretation, 2nd Edition
\npage 21.\n<\/p>\n
    This  Court\t in Lt Col. Prithi Pal Singh  Bedi  etc.  v.
\nUnion  of India & Ors., [1983] I S.C.R. 393 at page  404  of
\nthe   report  reiterated  that\tthe  dominant\tpurpose\t  in
\nconstruing  a statute is to ascertain the intention  of\t the
\nParliament.   One   of\tthe  well   recognised\t canons\t  of
\nconstruction is that the legislature speaks its mind by\t use
\nof  correct expression and unless there is any ambiguity  in
\nthe language of the provision the Court should adopt literal
\nconstruction if it does not lead to an absurdity. Therefore,
\nthe  first  question  to be posed is whether  there  is\t any
\nambiguity  in the language used. If there is none, it  would
\nmean  the language used, speaks the mind of  Parliament\t and
\nthere  is  no need to look somewhere else  to  discover\t the
\nintention  or meaning. If the literal construction leads  to
\nan absurdity, external aids to construction can be  resorted
\nto. To ascertain the literal meaning it is equally necessary
\nfirst  to ascertain the juxtaposition in which the  rule  is
\nplaced,\t the purpose for which it is enacted and the  object
\nwhich it is required to subserve and the authority by  which
\nthe rule is framed.\n<\/p>\n
    Bearing  the aforesaid principle in mind, we  find\tthat
\nthere is no absurdity in the literal meaning. The purpose of
\nthe Act is to realise money from those whose activities lead
\nto  pollution  and  who\t must  bear  the  expenses  of\t the
\nmaintenance  and running of the State Board. It is a  fiscal
\nprovision  and\tmust,  therefore,  not\tonly  be   literally
\nconstrued  but also be strictly construed. Having regard  to
\nthe literal expression used and bearing in mind the  purpose
\nfor  the  legislation, we arrive at a  result  that  certain
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t   PG NO 388
\nindustries  have to pay the expenses of the maintenance\t and
\nfunctioning  of the State Boards. Considering the  principle
\nbroadly and from commonsense point of view, we find  nothing
\nto warrant the conclusion that Rayon Grade Pulp is  included
\nin  either of the industries as canvassed on behalf  of\t the
\npetitioner  here  and  as  held by the\tHigh  Court  in\t the
\njudgment under appeal.\n<\/p>\n
    In\tthis case, we must also note that neither the  water
\nPollution  Board nor any authorities under the Act  nor\t the
\nHigh  Court proceeded on any evidence how these\t expressions
\nare  used  in the particular industry or understood  in\t the
\ntrade\tgenerally.   In\t other\twords,\t no   principle\t  of
\nunderstanding  in  “common  parlance”  is  involved  in\t the
\ninstance case.\n<\/p>\n
    In\tthat view of the matter, we are of the opinion\tthat
\nthe  contention\t sought\t for  by the  petitioner  is  of  no
\nsubstance.\n<\/p>\n
    Our\t attention, however, was drawn to the decision of  a
\nlearned\t single\t Judge of the High Court of Kerala  in\tM\/s.
\nGwalior\t Rayon\tSilk  Mfg. (Wvg.) Co. Ltd.,  Mavoor  v.\t The
\nAppellate  Committee for Water Cess, Trivandrum and  others,
\nA.I.R.\t1983 Kerala 110. There, the learned single Judge  of
\nthe  Kerala  High  Court held  that  industry  manufacturing
\nrayon-grade  pulp is chemical industry. The High  Court\t has
\nobserved  that the product of the Pulp Division of  a  rayon
\nsilk  manufacturing company is rayon-grade  pulp,  extracted
\nfrom  bamboo  or wood. The High Court noted  that  the\tpulp
\nproduced  in  the Pulp Division of the company\tis  the\t raw
\nmaterial  for  the  Staple Fibre Division.  The\t High  Court
\nfurther\t observed  that the pulp in question is\t a  chemical
\nused as chemical raw material, in the form known as chemical
\ncellulose,  for preparation of fibres. The High Court  noted
\nthat  for  the\tscientist cellulose  is\t a  carbohydrate  an
\norganic compound, a saccharide and for the layman also it is
\na  chemical  like salt and sugar. Manufacture of  pulp\tfrom
\nwood  or bamboo involves consumption of large quantities  of
\nwater  which  get  polluted in the  process;  and  “chemical
\nindustry” in the context in which it is used in Schedule  I
\nof the Act, can therefore, include an industry manufacturing
\nrayon-grade pulp. We are unable, with respect, to accept the
\ncircuitous process of reasoning of the Kerala High Court. As
\nmentioned  hereinbefore,  looked  at  from  this  circuitous
\nmethod\tevery industry would be chemical industry. It  could
\nnot  have  been\t the intention\tto  include  all  industries
\nbecause every industry has to go to certain chemical process
\nmore  or less and, therefore, it could not be so  construed.
\nSuch expression should, therefore, be construed\t reasonably,
\nstrictly  and  from a commonsense point of  view.  The\tHigh
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t   PG NO 389
\nCourt  of  Kerala  has\tset out in  the\t said  judgment\t the
\ncompany’s case in that case which also produced Rayon  Grade
\nPulp  and  the\tmanufacturing  process\tconsisted  only\t  of
\nisolating cellulose present in bamboo and wood by removal of
\n“lignin” and other contents, and that the resultant  product
\nis  not\t chemical  cellulose. It explained  the\t process  as
\nunder:\n<\/p>\n
    “The  actual process of manufacture of Rayon grade\tpulp
\nis by feeding the raw materials on the conveyors leading  to
\nthe  chippers, where they are chipped into small  pieces  in
\nuniform sizes. The raw materials are washed by a  continuous
\nstream\tof  water  before they are  fed\t into  chippers\t for
\nremoval\t of their adhering mud and dirt. The chips are\tthen
\nconveyed  into Digesters, where they are subjected  to\tacid
\npre-hydrolysis,\t using dilute sulphuric acid  solution.\t The
\nspent  liquor is then drained out, and the chips  washed  to
\nremove the acid. The chips are again cooked using a solution
\ncontaining  cooking chemicals at high temperature  of  above
\n160C.  After  the  chips are thus  cooked  the\tpressure  is
\nreleased, and the material is collected in a blow tank, from
\nwhere  the  chipped  pulp is sent to  “Knotter\tScreen”\t for
\nremoval\t of  uncooked  particles. The pulp is  washed  in  a
\nseries\tof washers in a counter-current manner.\t The  washed
\npulp  is  bleached in a multi-staged  Bleaching\t Plant,\t and
\nconverted  into\t sheets in a continuous\t machine.  The\tpulp
\nsheets\tso  obtained are sent to other factories  for  their
\nconversion into Staple Fibre.”\n<\/p>\n
    The\t said High Court also relied on a passage  from\t the
\n“Book of Popular Science” Grolier, 1969, Vol. 7, p. 55 which
\nreads as follows:\n<\/p>\n
    “Just what is a chemical, after all? Presumably it is  a
\npure  chemical substance (an element or compound) and not  a
\nmixture.  Thus sulphuric acid is a chemical ..\tBut  common
\nsalt and sugar, with which all of us are familiar, are\talso
\npure chemical substances …. The truly chemical industries,
\nwhich  manufacture chemicals, are seldom well  known to\t the
\npublic. This is because we, as consumers, do not  ordinarily
\nmake  use of chemicals in their pure form. Instead they\t are
\nconverted into products that reach the consumer only after a
\nnumber of operations ….”\n<\/p>\n
\t\t\t\t   (Emphasis supplied)
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t   PG NO 390
\n    As\tmentioned  hereinbefore, the  expression  should  be
\nunderstood not in technical sense but from broad commonsense
\npoint  of view to find out what it truly means by those\t who
\ndeal  with them. Bearing the aforesaid perspective in  mind,
\nwe  are\t unable to agree with the view of  the\tKerala\tHigh
\nCourt\texpressed  in  the  aforesaid  judgment.   In\tthat
\nconspectus  of\tthe Kerala High Court  everything  would  be
\nincluded in the process of chemical.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
    In\tthe  aforesaid\tview of the matter  we\tare  of\t the
\nopinion\t that  the  High  Court of  Andhra  Pradesh  in\t the
\nimpugned judgment was right and the High Court of Kerala  in
\nthe judgment referred to hereinbefore was not right.
\n    In the aforesaid view of the matter this petition  fails
\nand is accordingly dismissed.\n<\/p>\n
R.S.S.\t\t\t\t      Petition dismissed\n\n\n\n<\/pre>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India Member-Secretary, Andhra … vs Andhra Pradesh Rayons Ltd. & Ors on 30 September, 1988 Equivalent citations: 1989 AIR 611, 1988 SCR Supl. (3) 380 Author: S Mukharji Bench: Mukharji, Sabyasachi (J) PETITIONER: MEMBER-SECRETARY, ANDHRA PRADESH STATEBOARD FOR PREVENTION A Vs. RESPONDENT: ANDHRA PRADESH RAYONS LTD. & ORS. DATE OF JUDGMENT30\/09\/1988 BENCH: […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[30],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-8748","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nMember-Secretary, Andhra ... vs Andhra Pradesh Rayons Ltd. & Ors on 30 September, 1988 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/member-secretary-andhra-vs-andhra-pradesh-rayons-ltd-ors-on-30-september-1988\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Member-Secretary, Andhra ... vs Andhra Pradesh Rayons Ltd. & Ors on 30 September, 1988 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/member-secretary-andhra-vs-andhra-pradesh-rayons-ltd-ors-on-30-september-1988\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"1988-09-29T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-10-09T23:34:54+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"19 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/member-secretary-andhra-vs-andhra-pradesh-rayons-ltd-ors-on-30-september-1988#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/member-secretary-andhra-vs-andhra-pradesh-rayons-ltd-ors-on-30-september-1988\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Member-Secretary, Andhra … vs Andhra Pradesh Rayons Ltd. & Ors on 30 September, 1988\",\"datePublished\":\"1988-09-29T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-10-09T23:34:54+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/member-secretary-andhra-vs-andhra-pradesh-rayons-ltd-ors-on-30-september-1988\"},\"wordCount\":3206,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Supreme Court of India\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/member-secretary-andhra-vs-andhra-pradesh-rayons-ltd-ors-on-30-september-1988#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/member-secretary-andhra-vs-andhra-pradesh-rayons-ltd-ors-on-30-september-1988\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/member-secretary-andhra-vs-andhra-pradesh-rayons-ltd-ors-on-30-september-1988\",\"name\":\"Member-Secretary, Andhra ... vs Andhra Pradesh Rayons Ltd. & Ors on 30 September, 1988 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1988-09-29T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-10-09T23:34:54+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/member-secretary-andhra-vs-andhra-pradesh-rayons-ltd-ors-on-30-september-1988#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/member-secretary-andhra-vs-andhra-pradesh-rayons-ltd-ors-on-30-september-1988\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/member-secretary-andhra-vs-andhra-pradesh-rayons-ltd-ors-on-30-september-1988#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Member-Secretary, Andhra … vs Andhra Pradesh Rayons Ltd. & Ors on 30 September, 1988\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Member-Secretary, Andhra ... vs Andhra Pradesh Rayons Ltd. & Ors on 30 September, 1988 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/member-secretary-andhra-vs-andhra-pradesh-rayons-ltd-ors-on-30-september-1988","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Member-Secretary, Andhra ... vs Andhra Pradesh Rayons Ltd. & Ors on 30 September, 1988 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/member-secretary-andhra-vs-andhra-pradesh-rayons-ltd-ors-on-30-september-1988","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1988-09-29T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-10-09T23:34:54+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"19 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/member-secretary-andhra-vs-andhra-pradesh-rayons-ltd-ors-on-30-september-1988#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/member-secretary-andhra-vs-andhra-pradesh-rayons-ltd-ors-on-30-september-1988"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Member-Secretary, Andhra … vs Andhra Pradesh Rayons Ltd. & Ors on 30 September, 1988","datePublished":"1988-09-29T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-10-09T23:34:54+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/member-secretary-andhra-vs-andhra-pradesh-rayons-ltd-ors-on-30-september-1988"},"wordCount":3206,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Supreme Court of India"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/member-secretary-andhra-vs-andhra-pradesh-rayons-ltd-ors-on-30-september-1988#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/member-secretary-andhra-vs-andhra-pradesh-rayons-ltd-ors-on-30-september-1988","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/member-secretary-andhra-vs-andhra-pradesh-rayons-ltd-ors-on-30-september-1988","name":"Member-Secretary, Andhra ... vs Andhra Pradesh Rayons Ltd. & Ors on 30 September, 1988 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1988-09-29T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-10-09T23:34:54+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/member-secretary-andhra-vs-andhra-pradesh-rayons-ltd-ors-on-30-september-1988#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/member-secretary-andhra-vs-andhra-pradesh-rayons-ltd-ors-on-30-september-1988"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/member-secretary-andhra-vs-andhra-pradesh-rayons-ltd-ors-on-30-september-1988#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Member-Secretary, Andhra … vs Andhra Pradesh Rayons Ltd. & Ors on 30 September, 1988"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/8748","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=8748"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/8748\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=8748"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=8748"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=8748"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}